The Hope invested in Youth?

Recently in my line of work, there has been a lot of talk about youth. During an interview with Dr Moeller (former ambassador to Denmark), he said that personally, he feels that his time was to make this period a better period than it was before previously. Coming from the cold war, he wtinessed the tides of change and felt somewhat bittersweet about this period, he wasn't too sure if he had made a positive difference, or have progressed very far from where he had come from.

This vested interest in youths, it would seem stems from the disappointment of one's time. Young people are often heralded as beacons of hope, an investment even, of a better future. The youths have their ideas of what they want to do, and learning from the past mistakes, they are seen to be innovative in their solutions.

Is that true? I am hesitant to call it conclusively so. While my business is one vested in youths, and true enough I do want to see that there is hope in the youths of the future. However, the concept of "youth" is very arbitrary, inconclusive and often just simply confusing.

What does it mean to be young and is this hope invested in youths something that is justified? Let me draw an example, the 'older' generation see young people potential that they themselves have achieved. The older generation have regrets, they have faced with disappointments. Indeed, how much of 'potential' they see in youths, one that is in actuality, cast upon them due to their own shortcomings? While they see unripe potential, I've come to see that youths are expected to act and to act in ways that are becoming of them - innovative but also docile, innocent but also mature. These are contradictory characteristics expected of youths - we cannot have both dichotomous natures embodied in one. Something seems to give here.

This is why I feel that youths today are not seen as the hope, but rather a form of redemption of the older generation. The youth of today are always in debt of the past generation. We are financially in debt due to our school fees/housing loans. We are constantly in emotional debt due to our lack of experience in life as we waddle through heartbreaks, betrayal and despair, we are also in familial debt, as we "return" what our parents have given us. There is much uncertainty with being young, and while one might argue that there are also plenty of choices, often I find that we take the choice that is a) imposed upon us by our elders, whether explicitly or implicitly or b) we take the path most well travelled.

As a result, we repeat the mistakes of those before us, and perpetuate this almost idealistic hope of redemption in the next generation, hoping that they don't follow our mistakes - and yet, still insisting that they do what is "right" (get a "right job", start a "right family", "settle down").

The youth doesn't bring hope for a better future, they simply serves as beacons of redemption from the previous generation. The previous generation see us as their second chances - to make the same choices, but to perform better instead of allowing us to make the choices for ourselves. We are not angels of hope, but puppets under the hands of those who are in a better financial position to manipulate.

What has human geography got to do with music?

The following article was published in NUS Geography Department Annual "Geosphere" magazine issue.

Music Geographies

I don’t know about you, but ever since I’ve arrived at NUS FASS, my eyes have been opened to a whole new world of ideas. I’ve read things that changed how I think such that I can never go back to the way I was before. There are many things which we didn’t know could be known and instead of filling up our brains, our best professors made us realise that we had one, constantly opening up new channels of inquiry.

So much of what we read is based on what is seen, and out of all our well-padded organs (exams just makes me put on so much weight), we are most aware our eyes. It’s true, is it not, since eyes are windows to the soul? Much of geographical studies are produced through observations and reproduced through texts and maps - the quintessential geographical tools. We are less aware of what we hear, smell or touch, unless it chafes what we “normally” experience.

Often we intuitively know what music is, without the need for anyone to define it. However when we actually start to define it, we find that it is difficult to do so. For instance, would you call the karaoke attempt by your neighbour at 9am on a Sunday music or noise? We then realise how music is defined is at once subjective because of where and when it is heard and the context of which it is considered acceptable performing space.

Even within spaces, music play an important part in shaping how we feel and in turn how we react to certain things. Clubs hardly play slow music without a bass, and lounge bars often do not play pop music. It seems that music can treat a place, and our socialised reactions against certain genres then in turn dictate how we react with each other in the space. Spaces also shape musical performances. From rock concerts to classical symphonies - each venue is shaped and marketed differently due to their needs and social function. We all know the raw energy that comes from pop/rock concerts where rules of propriety are suspended - it’s almost expected that loud sounds (or some would argue noises) are allowed or even encouraged. Yet the pindrop silences in classical concert halls amplifies the fool that applauds during the wrong time (between movements for instance)  which can draw accusatory glares towards your direction, if the fool happens to be you. It singles someone out as being not informed, making one feel not belonged and out of place.

Some composers have even used spatial elements to create music. Iannis Xenakis for instance, took the architectural-mathematical principles that shape spaces and used them to create works like Metastasis. While his avant garde ‘music’ to the layperson might be ‘noise’, it is without a doubt that spatial influences on music is profound - both literally and figuratively. To bring things back on simpler terms, we often associate the high strings with horror show bathroom scenes (in fact, I’ve tried watching a horror show with the speakers mute before, and the effect was hilarious) and soundtrack composers have more than once tried to evoke emotions ranging from epic (think Spartacus) to the quiet (Pride and Prejudice). Some movies are completely devoid of music and rely on the very absence of it, to create tension throughout (I am Legend). Whether it be fantasy or reality, sounds paint spaces as much as light colours our world.

Yet, can we describe music as much as how we have experienced it? Unlike sight, we cannot draw ocular imaginations based on what we are listening to, although many songs and lyrics point to specific locations in which the listeners can evoke feelings from. What about instrumentals? I find myself drawing different auditory images and emotions depending on where I am currently at. The same song or piece can become differently, based on what I am doing, how I am feeling at that moment as well as where I am. Music, despite it’s permanent quality due to improvements in technology (digital recordings etc), will always have a transient quality and is momentary, because of its audience. Therefore, like spaces, people react differently towards music depending on the time of day, and the peculiar emotional connections we develop historically. We may hear the same way, but we always listen differently.

Geographers have called for a beyond-visual understanding of spaces. Therefore, as much as our education opens our eyes, it is our ears that also need opening. Adding sound is like adding colour to a black and white television. It makes things pop - so to speak. While eyes are windows to the soul, our ears make our souls act.

Social media have revamped how we see ourselves, as well as how we see ourselves in the eyes of others. We can now gaze into their lives, without coming across as intrusive, and yet we also feel a little uneasy when someone has been ‘stalking’ us, or when someone comments on your wall a little too soon, a little too often.

However who can deny that social media has had positive impacts on all of us? We keep in touch with old friends whom might have been awkward to call and close the drift of time that puts people apart. We might even heard a love match or two between strangers who ‘added’ each other on Facebook randomly and eventually made it to the wedding altar (not randomly of course). Facebook have nudged us, with every improvement to their interface, to take our lives a little more seriously as we upload photographs, update statuses and pindrop our location.

As smartphones help us record minuscule detail of our lives, we also lose a moment in participating in our lives. We don’t necessarily realise that holding a phone in front of our friend, can create a barrier. As we record more, we also interact less with others, or is it a complementary relationship - that as we record, we stop and smell the roses more? Do people actually care that you’ve ‘checked-in’ at a train station? Do we do it for the pleasure of recording a moment in history, or as a form of exhibition to our audience that you’re living a life and have something to prove it? Who are we answering to really?

There are some that reject social media (yes, people without a Facebook or Twitter account still exist). They claim that their lives are better lived “offline”, as they value the privacy of their lives. Some have told me that they feel uncomfortable sharing too much with acquaintances - especially with issues of sexuality and religious beliefs. For instance, I have a friend tell me once that he doesn’t use Facebook because it is quite ‘bo liao’ and still relies on smses to get things done. There are those that find it a waste of their time, filling in those Profile information for friends who already know their likes and dislikes. It can also feel quite personal, if you reject a friend request from your colleagues whom you don’t feel comfortable adding. 

Social media is contentious, however much one resist, we cannot deny that it’s influence is precisely built upon sheer numbers. The more people rely on it to arrange events/meet-ups, the more people feel left out and in turn get sucked into the whole ‘online’ community. Are we becoming closer? Or are we becoming increasingly far apart?

One thing that definitely has changed for the better, is the return of photo-taking. Never in our lives before Tumblr, Facebook and Instagram, have we dabbled in photography in such a scale. It seemed to be making a renaissance. People are snatching up DSLRs of all kinds and ranges, toying with cameras and advertising those shots on their walls. What encourages such behaviour even further, is the immediate response you get from others.  Photos become the subject for a conversation and to break the ice for those whom we haven’t spoken to in a while. Photos taken by people we know makes it personal and places or things we have heard of does not seem that distant as before. Suddenly taking a memorable or interesting profile picture is all the rage. We are all models as well as photographers and our friends become critics. We never dabbled that much in photography for our own pleasure as before, and we have social media to thank for that. 

While we grapple with our ‘online’ lives between living the moment or recording the moment that has passed, social media is essential but not fundamental to our relationships with others. The importance is just to strike a balance. It’s always great to meet up and give some hugs to a friend you haven’t met in a long time.

Why is the title of this blog called a Penopticon?

A panopticon is a design by Jeremy Bentham to watch prisoners using the least amount of guards. The design exposes all prisoners to the "all-seeing eye" of the guard tower in the middle. It looks a little like this.

This design is used in almost all modern prisons. Imagine yourself as a prisoner in one of the cells, can you truly shit in peace with someone watching you all the time? Essentially, you can't do anything and not get away with it.

I chose to do a word-play on this word to incorporate "pen" because essentially that's what writing is about. The "pen" represents language and through it, ideas and how it can in turn influence us in very subtle ways. The force is not overt, much like the gaze of the guards from the central tower, where the intangible power of simply being visible, can discipline the prisoners into order. It is not perfect, and resistance does occur, however by and large - most people comply.

This blog aims to fight against the panopticon, to keep questioning and investigating the more subtle power struggles in our lives, to ground certain large social issues and make it relevant to our personal lives. I hope, this would be a fruitful project for both myself, the writers to come, and my audience members.

What does it mean to help someone?

What does it mean when we say we help someone? It effect is very straightforward, where we help so as to make the other party feel/live better. It can range from small deeds of picking up a tissue for a friend, or the passion for helping those in sickness, or creating a system where we are able to make a village get out of poverty. I don't suppose one questions the goodness about helping others. However, we have similarly recognised that the effect of help is not 100% positive. What does foreign aid mean, when it's tied to ideology. For instance, to receive aid, countries in Thailand during the 1997 Asian Financial crisis have to be forced to enact liberal reforms that caused more harm than good because IMF prosits that all forms of liberal markets to be good. Yet we know that markets do fail. On the other hand while an NGO may dig wells to help the villagers so that they do not need to travel for miles for water, they invariably cause soil salinisation which rendered farms useless.

 My question about aid/help is a personal one. It extends from the assumption of goodwill. What does it mean to us, when we extend our help to others? I can think of 3 reasons.

1) We help others because we sympathise or feel pity Yet, by feeling pity for someone, aren't we placing ourselves in a position of higher power? Who are we to judge that the person requires our pity and our aid? If we start from this position, then the help-ee will thus find legitimate reason to rely on the help-er. This forms what can be seen as a messiah-complex: where you gain legitimacy to your power because of the deeds you do for others. In this case, this is simply an exercise of power over someone's will.

2) We help others because we feel good When we help someone because we ultimately feel good about it, then wouldn't that stem from a very self-interested vantage point? Would one still help others if the act no longer feels good? Does a social worker quit because he/she no longer finds fulfilment in helping her clients? People are as fickle as the weather and therefore if we were to base humanity entirely on the goodwill of others, we would have died out long ago.

3) We help others because we want something in return The last one is often frowned upon. Quid pro quo is often ranked to be the least worthy of mention. Most people see it as a transaction, rather than 'altruism'. Yet I feel that this is the type of 'help' that gets things done. While we may not admit it, but most often in our personal relationships, we try to help others so that we can show our affection for them, or to also gain their affection.

So how do we resolve the issue of help/aid? I guess the issue is that while it starts from the "I", it can also end with the "I". We should not pretend that we're helping others because of our goodwill, indeed such a form of altruism can be easily tested and many are uncomfortable in saying or admitting that they are actually not 100% altruistic.

I think it's perfectly normal and while the best of us try to be 'good' and help others, we are also fallible. We don't have to be ashamed for feeling less that perfect, we're not gods. So how do we then resolve this dilemma? I think admission that you're helping for personal gain is the start. Yet this gain need not me something that is breeds negativity. Instead, we can see that helping others as helping ourselves. We instead of telling ourselves that we can show them a better way (1) as a gesture of sympathy, or to do something so that we feel good about ourselves in return (2) or to simply gain merit, we help because we know that we can learn more about ourselves at the end of the process.

It sounds like a conclusion we are familiar with and one wonders why bother wasting precious time reading through. If you have slept well, all this time without doubting whether what you feel or do is conscientiously "good" or "bad", then I am sorry to have wasted your time. However, if you're like me who have this constant nagging feeling - whether you're bringing more harm and good by helping others, then I hope this little article have brought some resolution. I think that humanity is capable of evil under the veil of good, as well as good under the veil of evil.

We don't necessary read minds or hearts, but we can read actions and while we've always thought that 'help' as something that is good in and of itself, where it stems from is equally if not more important that the present act. I guess the implications for writing so is so that we remain humble in our actions towards others, and through the example of "helping others", I hope to send a message that our good intentions may not always have the best outcome if we do not complete the cycle and understand that by helping others, we are in fact helping and learning more about ourselves. In the end, one might realise that the one most helped, is in fact the "I".